Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

OPINION

El Paso, Dayton and Gilroy cry out that it's time to ban the sale of assault-style rifles

The Editorial Board, USA TODAY
Published 9:52 a.m. CT Aug. 14, 2019

Weapons of war used in the three latest major American shootings are insane killing machines: Our view

The military-style rifles purchased and employed in the three latest major American shootings are formidable killing machines. They fire a round traveling at such high speed (more than 3,000 feet per second, far faster than a bullet from a handgun) that it destroys not only what it penetrates, but also a tunnel of surrounding tissue pulverized by the unleashed energy. And the weapons' design absorbs a substantial portion of recoil, allowing the gunman to fire effectively and smoothly as quickly as he (yes, it's typically a he) can pull the trigger.

Those who study these events describe the killers' almost fetishistic devotion to this brand of firearm. "A lot of what we see in the communications they give out is that they feel disempowered. ... These weapons are symbols and accessories that make them bigger than they are, make them stronger than they are, make them more powerful," says Amy Barnhorst, vice chair for community mental health at the University of California, Davis.

The arguments against reinstating a federal ban on assault-style rifles are familiar: Handguns account for the vast majority of firearm deaths; the 1994-2004 ban didn't work; and there are already too many such rifles on the streets for a new restriction to make any difference.

But the fact that handguns are linked with far more killings is no reason to allow a military-style weapon that makes killing far more efficient and, for the hate-filled, more seductive. A fair reading of research into the 1994 ban shows the law lapsed too soon to conclusively assess its effectiveness. That law might have relied too heavily on defining assault rifles based on attachments and features that gun-makers easily overcame with modifications to render them legal. A better standard might be prohibition based on high muzzle velocity, with exceptions for large hunting rifles that are bolt-action.

And arguing that there are already too many assault-style rifles in circulation to ban new sales ignores the reality that many of the most recent mass killers were young men who acquired their guns through new purchases. A voluntary buy-back program could reduce the nation's armory of existing assault-style rifles.